AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.
I have no doubt whatever that the amendment of the written statement, on the facts of this particular case, ought to have been allowed, and that
the learned Judge was in error in declining to permit the verbal amendment. Actually, there are authorities of the Supreme Court, which I need not set forth here, for the view that, in such matters, Courts should adopt a fairly liberal attitude, unless the nature of the amendment is such as to alter the basis of the suit altogether, or to introduce some new ground of fact which was not earlier in the pleading. It appears to me that, in these days when the knowledge of a language like English and the accurate use of it are both showing signs of diminution rather than increase, it is all the more essential that a Court should be liberal, before inhibiting a party from making a verbal amendment to his pleadings. Very briefly the facts here are
that, in respect of a document in writing relied on by the plaintiff as constituting a negotiable instrument upon which he could enforce his claim, on
the principle of Sec. 25 sub-clause (3) of the Contract Act, the defendant originally stated in his written statement that he did not ""consciously
execute"" the document in question. The only amendment that he now seeks is the deletion of the word "consciously" in this part of the written
statement. Actually, that word did not clarify the pleading, oven as it stood; it merely obscured it. A man cannot unconsciously execute a
document, unless indeed it is his specific case that he was rendered drunk or insensible of his acts at the time of execution. The amendment merely makes it clear that the execution is denied, and, the plaintiff will have to prove the execution prima facie. The defendant may then have to explain how he came to execute such a document, without the execution being valid and enforceable as against him; the burden may shift at that stage, and nothing need be said about it now. The amendment, in my view, ought to be allowed, in the interests of justice. It is accordingly allowed and the suit should proceed to further trial. Parties will bear their own costs.